CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 août 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } Published on 16 September 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 1161/21 Denisa BLAŽOVÁ against the Czech Republic and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 28 August 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES In November 2016 the Slovak authorities issued requests for mutual assistance, pursuant to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 20 April 1959 (ETS 30) and the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union (2000/C 197/01), in the context of criminal proceedings brought against the applicant’s partner and his brother on suspicion of kidnapping a person in Slovakia and murdering and concealing the victim’s body in the Czech Republic. On the basis of the requests for mutual assistance, the Czech authorities decided to employ several undercover measures, consisting in particular of (i) GPS car tracking (application no. 1161/21) and (ii) use of listening and recording devices inside cars (applications nos.   13473/21 and 15980/21), to be carried out between November 2016 and May 2017. Similar undercover measures were in parallel authorised by the Slovak authorities on the territory of Slovakia. Those form the subject matter of an application against Slovakia currently pending before the Court (no.   7747/21). The cars at issue were used by the persons under investigation but also by the applicant. She allegedly learned of the undercover measures for the first time on 22   January 2020. The applicant challenged them before the Czech Constitutional Court in three separate constitutional appeals which were, however, rejected as having been lodged outside the one-year statutory time limit (decisions no. IV. ÚS 815/20 of 15 June 2020, no.   II.   ÚS 832/20 of 1   September 2020 and no. II. ÚS 845/20 of 15   September 2020). The applicant complains that the undercover measures employed by the Czech authorities unlawfully and arbitrarily interfered with her right to respect for private life and that she did not have any effective remedy under Czech law to challenge these measures. The applicant relies on Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was there an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, under paragraph 1 of Article 8 of the Convention, on account of (i) the use of listening and recording devices in the cars (VIN:   WAUZZZ4F27N120439 and VIN: WBAFV71010C774403) authorised for the period from 14 November 2016 to 14   March 2017 and from 12 December 2016 to 9 May 2017 respectively, and (ii) the GPS tracking of the car (VIN: WAUZZZ4F27N120439) authorised for the period from 12   November 2016 to 12 March 2017? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention? 2.     Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaints under Article 8, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?       APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 1161/21 Blažová v. the Czech Republic 17/12/2020 Denisa BLAŽOVÁ 1991 Bučany Slovak Dávid KRÁTKY 2. 13473/21 Blažová v. the Czech Republic 01/03/2021 Denisa BLAŽOVÁ 1991 Bučany Slovak Dávid KRÁTKY 3. 15980/21 Blažová v. the Czech Republic 15/03/2021 Denisa BLAŽOVÁ 1991 Bučany Slovak Dávid KRÁTKY